Igal Levin explains why Putin will not agree to a ceasefire

Translating an opinion by Israeli journalist Igal Levin in the Obozrevatel, Aug.19:

"Why Putin Opposed the Ceasefire: The Detail Everyone Missed

Why did Putin oppose a ceasefire at his meeting with Trump and propose an alternative in the form of signing a comprehensive agreement to end the war? 

That is, a peace treaty. 

There's a point here that, as I've pointed out, some are missing. A ceasefire can be arranged overnight; all that's needed is an order, and then it's up to the field commanders to comply. A ceasefire can end a war with the snap of a finger if senior and field commanders on both sides comply. Or, at the very least, minimize and reduce violence on the front to the bare minimum. 

A peace agreement, however, is a complex and lengthy process that can take years or even decades. A few examples off the top of my head: 

Egypt and Israel – ceasefire in 1973, peace treaty in 1979 – took 6 years. 

Jordan and Israel – ceasefire in 1949, peace treaty in 1994 – took 45 years. 

Armenia and Azerbaijan—a ceasefire in 2020, a peace treaty in 2025 – took five years. 

 

North and South Korea—an armistice in 1953 (and that was through the UN, China, and North Korea; South Korea never signed anything), and there's still no peace treaty. 

 

The list could go on, but the logic is clear: a peace treaty and ending a war isn't like buying a chicken at the market; it's a long process that could drag on for half a century. And even "quick" signings would take five years or more. 

 

Putin, rejecting the first stage – stopping the war itself, that is, a ceasefire—is proposing to skip all the stages and end the war immediately with peace. And since this is a long process, that means sometime later, in 2030, for example, or perhaps even later. Until the "root causes of the Ukrainian crisis," for example, are resolved. 

 

 Furthermore, since no ceasefire has been signed, not only can hostilities continue over these years, but Ukraine can also be constantly accused of disrupting these very peace negotiations. They say, "We're for peace, but, for example, Kyiv has occupied our territories and cities—Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, and so on." If Kyiv is for peace and an end to the war, then why is it occupying cities that, according to the Russian Constitution, are Russian cities? This means Kyiv isn't interested in peace and wants to fight. And why? Because the "root causes of the Ukrainian crisis" haven't been resolved. 

 

 So, you get the logic: Putin, by telling Trump that he's against a ceasefire but for peace and an end to the war, is essentially saying that he wants and will continue to fight."